News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.8K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.6K     0 

Status
Not open for further replies.
If Peepers isn't on Rob Ford's pay roll, he should be. Lord knows, he spends a whole lot of time here, doing pr work for him and contorting in all kinds positions to justify Ford's stupidity.
 
While we await the release of the auditor report into Mayor Fords campaign funds can some please explain to me why it is only a problem when politicians on the right are alleged to have overspent on their campaigns?

The following information was taken directly from the city of Toronto website and it shows left wing Councillors over spending their allowable limits:


http://app.toronto.ca/EFD/efdFormSearchResult.do


Wong-Tam, Kristyn Councillor 27 SPENDING LIMIT: $43,553.45 ALL EXPENSES $57,048.83 ALL CONTRIBUTIONS $52,665.28
Vaughan, Adam Councillor 20 SPENDING LIMIT: $42,691.55 ALL EXPENSES $72,970.63 ALL CONTRIBUTIONS $89,889.97
McConnell, Pam Councillor 28 SPENDING LIMIT: $34,267.20 ALL EXPENSES $44,205.09 ALL CONTRIBUTIONS $48,571.54
Carroll, Shelley Councillor 33 SPENDING LIMIT:$30,863.80 ALL EXPENSES $36,627.98 ALL CONTRIBUTIONS $49,138.50

I don't recall compliance audits done on the above Councillors?
 
Last edited:
Peepers said:
While we await the release of the auditor report into Mayor Fords campaign funds can some please explain to me why it is only a problem when politicians on the right are alleged to have overspent on their campaigns?

The following information was taken directly from the city of Toronto website and it shows that Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam overspent her allowable limit by a whopping 32%! How come no action taken against Wong-Tam?


http://app.toronto.ca/EFD/efdFormSearchResult.do


Wong-Tam, Kristyn Councillor 27 SPENDING LIMIT: $43,553.45 ALL EXPENSES $57,048.83 ALL CONTRIBUTIONS $52,665.28
Click to expand...

I didn't know about that. Why don't you do it? The vocal right likes to whine about people like Adam C-F (who has a full time job, by the way), but won't invest the time and energy to do the same.
 
Peepers said:
While we await the release of the auditor report into Mayor Fords campaign funds can some please explain to me why it is only a problem when politicians on the right are alleged to have overspent on their campaigns?

The following information was taken directly from the city of Toronto website and it shows that Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam overspent her allowable limit by a whopping 32%! How come no action taken against Wong-Tam?


http://app.toronto.ca/EFD/efdFormSearchResult.do


Wong-Tam, Kristyn Councillor 27 SPENDING LIMIT: $43,553.45 ALL EXPENSES $57,048.83 ALL CONTRIBUTIONS $52,665.28
Click to expand...

Because most literate people know how to read financial reports?

TOTAL CAMPAIGN EXPENSES THAT WERE SUBJECT TO THE SPENDING LIMIT: $42,398.07
 
RC8 said:
Because most literate people know how to read financial reports?

TOTAL CAMPAIGN EXPENSES THAT WERE SUBJECT TO THE SPENDING LIMIT: $42,398.07
Click to expand...

Yes there is a difference between expenses subject to spending limit and total expenses but how come when total expenses far exceed amount subject to spending limit that there isn't a compliance audit to make sure that the Councillor is not fudging the numbers? For example Adam Vaughan had a limit of $42,691.55 and total expenses of $72,970.63.
 
Peepers said:
Yes there is a difference between expenses subject to spending limit and total expenses but how come when total expenses far exceed amount subject to spending limit that there isn't a compliance audit to make sure that the Councillor is not fudging the numbers? For example Adam Vaughan had a limit of $42,691.55 and total expenses of $72,970.63.
Click to expand...

You want to make sure they're not fudging the numbers? Go for it. If you find anything you can report it, and if it seems to have merit, it will probably be looked at by an auditor. If you want to go after Adam Vaughan, knock yourself out.
 
We reviewed all of the instances noted by the Applicants and other instances where
there might be evidence of preferential treatment. We noted one (I) further instance.
Wexler Productions (" Wexler") billed $71,167.40 to the campaign for services
provided during the post-election victory party. The campaign paid $35,000 and
according to discussions with Doug, the campaign felt any further amounts were
excessive. Wexler advised that his billing was reasonable and that he had to write-off
the difference.
Click to expand...

Good god, these guys...

As for the rest of the report... Unsurprisingly they tried to cheat in every way they thought they could get away with - even if it was completely unreasonable to do so (the possibility of getting caught far outweighs any financial gains every time).
 
Peepers said:
Yes there is a difference between expenses subject to spending limit and total expenses but how come when total expenses far exceed amount subject to spending limit that there isn't a compliance audit to make sure that the Councillor is not fudging the numbers? For example Adam Vaughan had a limit of $42,691.55 and total expenses of $72,970.63.
Click to expand...

I might be misunderstanding this, but even if all other expenses were listed under those which qualify towards the limit, they would still be under their limit. The mayor can spend up to $1.3 million, so I would think councillors can spend a fair bit as well.

Either way, I doubt it would take 9 months to figure out something that is clearly written on a city document.
 
Peepers said:
Yes there is a difference between expenses subject to spending limit and total expenses but how come when total expenses far exceed amount subject to spending limit that there isn't a compliance audit to make sure that the Councillor is not fudging the numbers? For example Adam Vaughan had a limit of $42,691.55 and total expenses of $72,970.63.
Click to expand...

Wait wait, look at what you said before. You said Wong-Tam overspent her allowable limit, didn't you? And that was a lie, wasn't it?

Why don't you list all the right wing councillors (such as Doug Ford) who overspent their limit and are not being audited, too?
 
Instead of whining, I also suggested that if anyone (well, Peepers specifically, but anyone for that matter) wants to take on Wong-Tam, Vaughan or anyone else on campaign financing, knock yourselves out. If there's a case to be made, the auditor will have a look.

It's funny how it's the right has been more likely to have trouble with this issue in the last election (Peter Li Preti, Gus Cusimano, Mammoliti, Ford).
 
Last edited:
I think Ford is probably going to be let off the hook for this one. 3% is too small a value for punishment that some people would like to see him recieve.

Of course, he'll still go running to his radio show again squawking that the lefties are going after him again.
 
Reading the details of the report most of the disputed 3% seem to relate to differences of opinion over what represents fair market value "FMV" and the auditor making some ridiculous conclusions such as this concerning the rental of an RV:

A Recreational Vehicle (" RV'') was rented by the campaign at a cost of
$ I,808.00 for use during the period from July to October 2010. We concluded
that the rental was at less than fair market value ("FMV") and that a more
appropriate rental would have been $3,892. This is further discussed at
paragraphs 3.126 10 3.132.
Click to expand...

Reading further we learn that Ford rented the 2001 RV from a supporter who purchased the run-down van for $4,000. He rented it to Ford for $400 a month so as to make money to fix the brakes.

The auditor surveyed RV rental companies and concluded that the $1,808 that Ford paid in rent for the $4,000 van was not "fair market value" and that instead he should have paid $3,892 in rent on a van costing $4,000! How can people take a report like this seriously? This is what Adam Vaughan called "cheating"!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top